No Love Stories

 No love story has ever been told. There are only lust stories. 

 Lust, it turns out, is a surprisingly fluffy and soft emotion. Doesn't at all match its reputation. I presume this is due to an Envy-style perception filter.
 Regardless of the roots of the dynamic, all love stories boil down to this: "I am attracted to the attractive person." The protagonist believes the hot dude/chick would produce healthy offspring. Banal, prosaic, and self-absorbed. 

 Some of the most [[[romantic]]] stories are about how the potential offspring are so healthy, it's worth risking your life to procreate with their genitors. Banal, prosaic, self-absorbed, and melodramatic to the point of being suicidal. Being [romantic], it seems, is being lustful to the point of perversion, at the same time as being highly delusional. 

 It can even go further, to the point where the lust is fake. Many stories are about a protagonist who refuses to settle for anyone but the most attractive person. Why doesn't the second most attractive one also inspire lust? Why can't they be good enough? Because it's all Pride. Envy farming. There is no real lust there at all, the MC and author are faking. They cast it as loyalty...to someone they're not even married to. "I"m going to treat you as if we've been married for 30 years, even though I met you earlier today." Very sane.

 Readers find these delusional traitors especially sympathetic.
 Might as well go ahead and believe them. They're telling you about themselves.

 It's heavily implied that romeo tapped juliet, and lancelot tapped guienevere. Naturally, it evolved to be worse. In modern [love] stories it's either full pornography with contraceptives, or so chaste both sides remain virgins. Truly twisted. Lust stories where nobody has kids, or lust stories where only the worst kind of villains have sex at all.

Tank Obsolescence

 Tanks can't see and need an infantry screen. Tanks without infantry just get shot from the side by ambushing RPGs.

 If tanks do have an infantry screen, then get a bunch of snipers. Shoot the infantry screen from a couple miles away. Then the tanks don't have an infantry screen, so you ambush them with RPGs and destroy billions worth of equipment using millions worth of munitions. You can also clear the screen with some laser pointers and an artillery barrage. 

 This means both the armour and the engines on tanks are pointless. They can't travel any faster than a man on foot. They can't survive anything that can kill a man on foot. 

 Worse, drones now exist. Wire-guided drones are immune to both jamming and triangulation, and it means your RPG ambush doesn't have to have LOS on the tank. The armour column needs something a lot stronger than an infantry screen to stay viable.
 Even if the infantry screen takes cover and the snipers can't take them all out, at worst the tanks are now stationary. Sitting ducks. Easy marks not only for drones, but RPGs and heavy artillery.

 The large guns are useful. E.g. if you figure out where the snipers are sniping from, you'll find the tank gun sees their cover as invalid. The armour and any kind of high-performance engine are worse than useless.

Cowardice vs. Free Speech

 Women will always bow to pressure. Infinite cowardice.

 Which raises the question: who pressures? Does the virtuous man run extortion rackets, or is it the defective parasite? To ask is to answer.

 What is free speech? It is to permit literal devils to pressure women without limit. It is an astonishingly stupid idea.
 As previously, under Democracy, men are also women. Peasants are cowards.

The Anti-Slavery Slave Specie

 Outlawing slavery and killing slavers makes exactly as much sense as outlawing hair and killing barbers.

 Slavery is an inborn trait. Something you are, not something that happens to you. If slavery is to be stamped out, it is the slaves who must be executed.
 If this seems immorally cruel to you, then you are pro-slavery. 

 "We killed all the barbers and imprisoned anyone who forged razors or scissors. Why is everyone so hairy?"

 

 [Victim] is a kind of person, not a kind of circumstance. Prey is a kind of person.
 What do we learn from the cycle of violence? Those who commit are those against whom it was committed. You can't con an honest man; security is affordable; those who are deviated against are the deviants. Traitors are the ones being betrayed. Criminals are a kind of prey. Going el salvador works because it persecutes the greatest victims.
 Demand draws forth supply. To eradicate the supply of victimization, the demand for victimization must be deleted. Victims must be extirpated. Criminals are a kind of prey, and prey are a kind of criminal.

 Indeed, perhaps that is the solution to the el salvador mystery. Crime got so high that all non-gang victims were slain, resulting in collapse of demand, and consequently collapse of crime.  

 Turns out, when satan demanded a child sacrifice, it was because that child would have grown up to be a deviant, a defector, a traitor. You can't con an honest man, and as always, evil is self-destructive. Satan could never bother truly decent folk, despite desperate efforts.

 Agricultural societies are all slave societies. Farming races are slave races. Perhaps the great filter is wheat and rice. If you fail to reject the tax man, then your species is doomed.
 To de-agriculturalize the species at this point would take unfathomably drastic action, orders of magnitude beyond that which mortals have ever been capable of. 

 I've said before that war crimes are the table stakes. Geneva violations are the door charge. Quite possibly this is softballing the issue.
 The minimum is being able and willing to deliberately speciate. To consciously, strategically forbid cross-breeding. To have Darwin-level power.

Indenturing Considered Harmful

 "In 1640, a black indentured servant named John Punch left his master’s service, citing harsh treatment, before he had fulfilled his contract, and two white indentured servants left with him. When they were caught and returned to their master, the white servants only had four years added to their time; Punch was sentenced to servitude for life. After 1640, relations between blacks and whites increasingly changed as white servants received better treatment."
 https://www.worldhistory.org/article/1681/tobacco--colonial-american-economy/

 Did you know that accusations of racism were thought up by blacks, not whites? 

 We know from numerous well-documented present analogues. Punch (lol) made up grievances to get out of keeping his own word. "Y'all are mean to me just 'cuz I ain't white." Whether he was a flagrant liar or genuinely hallucinated is not known - because the difference is immaterial. In an attempt at a smokescreen, it would seem he induced two other worthless layabouts to back up his false charges, and as a result was held accountable for their dishonour as well as his own. 

 Blacks receive worse treatments because they behave worse. 

 Though also the master was at fault. Indentured servitude is imprudent. Anyone productive could have paid for their own ticket - but also, they already had a job in england, and didn't need a ticket. Retribution be vitriol, as per usual. Naturally indentured servants are going to lead to regret.

 

 Ironically, punch was somewhat correct. His bad behaviour was due to his nonwhite culture, hence his bad treatment was indeed the result of his nonwhiteness. His master had unconscious expectations of maturity, integrity, and responsibility that punch simply couldn't meet. Few ninjas have the capacity to assimilate, and few limeys have any willingness to make the accommodations these foreigners need for any kind of behavioural acceptability.  You can get the same quality of labour from bigot minors with single-digit ages, at the price of painfully similar accommodations. 

 Ninjas don't understand principles, or the fact someone might judge them for their character. They only understand dominance and submission, and their memories aren't long enough to remember they're not top dog from one day to the next. Normally this means you have to beat them (e.g. in a fight) every day, to remind them of their place. If beatings are illegal or even merely unprofitable, ninjas are unemployable.

Tree of Ingroup and Outgroup

 The bibble's tree is evocative, which means there's something there. The myth as written is well broken, which means either discarding it or repairing it. Repairing it generally means calling a spade a spade, to see what is broken about it, so it's possible to come up with various prototypes lacking the break. 

 Good and evil don't exist. There's nothing there to go beyond, it's merely a Prideful lie. The strong emotions named by the terms are rightly called ingroup and outgroup. The term [good] refers to things [we] do, and the term [evil] refers to things [we] don't do.
 Good and evil are a hack. For all the talk that men must have the capacity to destroy and love war and all that, it turns out that when it's necessary to destroy the next tribe over because there's a famine and not enough to go around, mortals need layers and layers of hacks or they'll refuse to do it. One of the hacks is demonizing the outgroup. Mortals can't fight an honourable opponent, they can only fight [pure evil]. 

 Thus, the bibble's tree is the tree of ingroup and outgroup. Adam gained knowledge that others differed from him, and was ostracized by the tribe of paradise as a result.
 Twisted, yeah? "There is no man or woman, all are one in jesus christ." The sin allegedly isn't being different, it's knowing about the differences. It doesn't help that allegedly Eden has no other men that adam can know he differs from; layers upon layers of twistedness.
 Notably, this is an example of satan being over-clever. The true moral of the story is buried with such finesse it probably doesn't work. After the fact, we can see the universalizing intent, but only through sophisticated tools. Without the new testament rendering it blatantly, it wouldn't be a sure thing.

 

 P.S. So adam thought of covering his junk due to the tree. I'm sure there's something there too - understanding others are not literally you leads to polite concealment. 

 But, one layer up, it's evil to go about unclothed, and jehovah was just letting them do it. Apparently it's not a sin if you're not aware it's a sin, or is bibble book 1 chapter 3 admitting jehovah is basically evil?

 You can try to say the shame is the sin, rather than the nakedness, but that means the tree instills delusions. Perhaps put it this way: adam wanted to sin by feeling shame, but didn't know how until the tree instructed him. (Man not as smart or wise as insentient food. Got mogged by masticate roasting in stomach acid.)

 

 

 

 P.P.S. The issue seems to be that mortals rightly believe they don't deserve to live, and consequently can't even fight other mortals who also don't deserve to live. That is, unless they laminate themselves with lies upon lies. Darwinian evolution took the shortcut and provided these lies. "We're awful, but let's a) vainly pretend the opposite and b) claim the other side are all goatfucking child butchers."

Communism is Fake and Gray

 The colour is grey. Gray is something else. 

 Ninjas wear black, or are sometimes gray. A bit gray all the time, really.

Mortals: Guilty Until Proven Innocent

 It is always correct to assume a mortal is attempting a manipulative betrayal, unless you have strong, specific, and concrete proof to the contrary. 

 Always assume malice unless malice is ruled out. 

 Even if a mortal wants to do something harmless, they will take the opportunity to lie about why they're doing it. 

 Free will doesn't produce evil without a co-morbid desire to do evil.
 Mortals consistently produce evil.
 Mortals desire evil. 

 The evil spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak. Darwin, and typically only Darwin, restrains traitorous mortal impulses. There were mortals who behaved freely, pursing their true desires, but they all died out, because evil is weak and self-destructive. They cut off their own tackle and bled to death. 

 Mortals will avoid evil if they believe the consequences of the behaviour will trigger one of their Darwininan harm-avoidance fixed action patterns. In other words, mortals will avoid evil if evil will get them executed. 

 Even so, the mortal will malice-maximize. They will run right up to the execution line. Get as close as they can manage without going over. This is why there's no point in being lenient. It only encourages them. 

 We can imagine a virtuous man, but just as plato had to imagine the aristocracy he never personally saw, we have to imagine it. It's not physically impossible or anything, and indeed if you see one, assuming they're malicious is unsuitable. Being lenient with a virtuous cooperator is prudent and profitable. In theory this constitutes a test, you can be lenient and see if it works out for you, but...